CubinNY

Just to set the record straight. Miller didn't have TJS he had a torn labrum. In 2004 he had surgery. Since 2004 he's had two more surgerys. Miller has worked hard and might have been worth a gamble when the Cubs orriginally signed him. I was really hoping he'd be able to make it back, but last year he didn't show much. I guess $1.5 isn't a lot of money in this market, but I don't think it was wise to resign him. Finally, location is important for any pitcher. But for one who is throwing BP fastballs, location is low on the list of worries.

I don't know if I'd call it scapegoating because it was Hendry's decision and I don't blame Miller for signing. The Cubs don't need him on the roster, that I'm not 100% sure off. Why, because I like to have the most options possible and this would have given the Cubs another positive option. It could have allowed the Cubs to trade Eyre(+) and get a SS or another player that could help. Who do you think the Cubs could get more value for right now, Campusano or Miller? Some of your feeling on this is hindsight. The Cubs signed him last year before a number of our pitching prospects got their feet wet at the ML level. One could argue that one or more of the prospects could out perform him (and probably be correct). However, after taking the flier on him last year, and knowing that guys usally recover in their second year removed from TJS, I totally understand why the Cubs resigned him. They would have hated to pay him to sit for a year only to watch some other team reap the potential benefits this year... I still think Miller has more value, right now, than Campusano. Wade Miller may still be effective if he learns to change speeds and hit his spots (that doesn't mean he's right for this team). I'd be willing to bet that more teams would gamble on him, right now, for $1M than be forced to keep (another gamble) Rule 5 guy on their 25 man roster. If Miller is stuggling to reach the mid 80s with his fastball, changing speeds won't matter one bit. Neither will location. Now, that's just ridiculous to say. Please tell me more of your fascinating insight.

I don't know if I'd call it scapegoating because it was Hendry's decision and I don't blame Miller for signing. The Cubs don't need him on the roster, that I'm not 100% sure off. Why, because I like to have the most options possible and this would have given the Cubs another positive option. It could have allowed the Cubs to trade Eyre(+) and get a SS or another player that could help. Who do you think the Cubs could get more value for right now, Campusano or Miller? Some of your feeling on this is hindsight. The Cubs signed him last year before a number of our pitching prospects got their feet wet at the ML level. One could argue that one or more of the prospects could out perform him (and probably be correct). However, after taking the flier on him last year, and knowing that guys usally recover in their second year removed from TJS, I totally understand why the Cubs resigned him. They would have hated to pay him to sit for a year only to watch some other team reap the potential benefits this year... I still think Miller has more value, right now, than Campusano. Wade Miller may still be effective if he learns to change speeds and hit his spots (that doesn't mean he's right for this team). I'd be willing to bet that more teams would gamble on him, right now, for $1M than be forced to keep (another gamble) Rule 5 guy on their 25 man roster. If Miller is stuggling to reach the mid 80s with his fastball, changing speeds won't matter one bit. Neither will location. It's not that hard to adjust to off-speed pitches when I guy throws that slow. In fact you could look off-speed and still catch up to the fastball. Now if he can get some arm strength back and get back intot he low 90s mid 80s consistently he may have some value. He didn't show enough to me at the end of last season to warrent resigning him. What was his problem at the end of last season besides control? He certainly wasn't a low strikeout pitcher-20 K's in 21.2 IP. He gave up 19 hits, which isn't awful, and the only huge problem was that he gave up 18 walks. Control the walks, and Wade becomes a very effective pitcher. Put the hits and walks together and you get WHIP. To me WHIP is more important than ERA when projecting into the future. http://www.fangraphs.com/graphs.aspx?playerid=568&position=P&page=6&type=full Edit: In additon checkout his BB/9 and K/BB

Absolutely. Although that's really not the right way to look at it. From a basic risk/reward perspective, Miller was a good, sound $1M gamble last offseason, when (at the time) he was projected to be able to pitch in May or June. It didn't work out, oh well. That's why the word risk appears in risk/reward. This offseason, $1.5M is another good, sound gamble on a high-upside guy that's expected to be good to go on (or near) opening day. The point being, the Cubs made two separate and independent decisions that happen to total $2.5M, not a one-time decision to spend $2.5M. People have brought up the Chris Carpenter example. That's the best-case scenario, obviously. But it illustrates perfectly why clubs take these low-cost flyers on guys with lots of upside coming off of injury. I hope the Cubs continue to be very active in this speculative market with guys just like Wade Miller (and Dempster, and Williamson). It's just good business. What is this supposed high upside? The first go around with Miller was fine. However, he ptiched last year at the end of the season and didn't show much of anything.

I don't know if I'd call it scapegoating because it was Hendry's decision and I don't blame Miller for signing. The Cubs don't need him on the roster, that I'm not 100% sure off. Why, because I like to have the most options possible and this would have given the Cubs another positive option. It could have allowed the Cubs to trade Eyre(+) and get a SS or another player that could help. Who do you think the Cubs could get more value for right now, Campusano or Miller? Some of your feeling on this is hindsight. The Cubs signed him last year before a number of our pitching prospects got their feet wet at the ML level. One could argue that one or more of the prospects could out perform him (and probably be correct). However, after taking the flier on him last year, and knowing that guys usally recover in their second year removed from TJS, I totally understand why the Cubs resigned him. They would have hated to pay him to sit for a year only to watch some other team reap the potential benefits this year... I still think Miller has more value, right now, than Campusano. Wade Miller may still be effective if he learns to change speeds and hit his spots (that doesn't mean he's right for this team). I'd be willing to bet that more teams would gamble on him, right now, for $1M than be forced to keep (another gamble) Rule 5 guy on their 25 man roster. If Miller is stuggling to reach the mid 80s with his fastball, changing speeds won't matter one bit. Neither will location. It's not that hard to adjust to off-speed pitches when I guy throws that slow. In fact you could look off-speed and still catch up to the fastball. Now if he can get some arm strength back and get back intot he low 90s mid 80s consistently he may have some value. He didn't show enough to me at the end of last season to warrent resigning him.

Dude, you were fine with this move when it happened. Quit hatin'. :evil: I know you were talking to CiNY but it isn't hating a player as I'm sure Miller is as a nice guy as any but it's a business move I wouldn't have made. It's alright Cuse I have him on ignore. I don't believe I've commented on the resigning of Miller after the first year. The only thing I'm hatin' is being called Dude. It reminds me of all the frat boys who use to hang out at the bar I worked. "Dude, she hot" "Dude, no way" "Awe, dude?" "Dude, come on"

When you're trying to build a team up through FA, you have to make those low cost / potentially high return moves. We could go the other route and just trade away our prospects... Or use the prospects. Honestly, has this type of activity really worked? It takes away a roster spot and also takes away some young guy from getting innings too. I see a lot of complaints about Perez and his 2.5 and Macias and his contract but these guys that don't come close to panning out get a free ride from complaints. And I really don't consider all the money the Cubs have spent on Miller to really be low cost. Yes, it does work; for the Cubs as well as other teams. It's a good gamble. The reality is, Miller has been on the DL, more often than not, during his brief time with the Cubs so it can hardly be argued that his presence has prevented the team from using its prospects. If the Cubs can't extend Z because of the $1M+ they have given Miller, thus far, then they have big problems. I doubt that's the case. Didn't they pay him last year and are paying him this year? Miller has been on the 40 man roster or am I wrong? Yes, last year he made $1M. This year's deal is $1.5M plus incentives. So if he amounts to nothing the Cubs have only gambled $2.5M because the incentives wouldn't be earned. Again, that's not going to keep them from extending Zambrano. It's totally low risk with a potential high reward for a guy with a decent ML track record. If a team can catch lighting in a bottle and help a guy resurrect his career, it's worth it. If not they part ways amicably. So you're ok with losing 2.5 plus (yes, it costs money to rehab) off the payroll? Z asks for 17 and the Cubs top off at 14.5, what's the difference? I see it as a waste of money especially since Miller was a power pitcher to begin with. It's not like Miller was an unknown quantity. He bombed out in Boston (with another arm injury) after he ruined his arm in Houston. Miller was not a "good gamble". He is a two time arm reconstruction pitcher. This is so Cubs like. Hendry has wasted more in his Tenure as GM then I will make in three lifetimes. I agree with Cuse, the opportunity costs have been high.

Miller is done.

Send an email to Santo. Someone will read it and someone will probably eamil you back, probably not Santo, but you could get confirmation on the story from its original source.

Vizquel circa 2007 or Vizquel circa 1997? http://www.fangraphs.com/comparison.aspx?playerid=411&playerid2=656&playerid3=&position=SS&page=0&type=full either on would be fine. i was looking at omar's career ba of .276 & ops of .702 though. That would pretty much be a career year for Cesar, not an impossibility but not a probability either.

Vizquel circa 2007 or Vizquel circa 1997? http://www.fangraphs.com/comparison.aspx?playerid=411&playerid2=656&playerid3=&position=SS&page=0&type=full

Chase Utley makes a heck of a lot more than the minimum. Anyways, that just goes to show you how easy it's been for teams to find cheap 2B talent. No need to pay big for such modest production. Which makes the time Neifi spent at second base even more incomprehensible. Well, I guess the only thing I can say is that they didn't expect Neifi to be playing 2B very much-they thought they had their starter there, and they didn't anticipate their starter at second moving to first in the middle of the season when second base help is not nearly as easy to find. From a production standpoint, Neifi has no buisiness on a ML club. He's hung around becuase he has a good glove and can play more than one position. He's also really likable. He talks to everyone fans, scouts, players from other teams, his own teammates. He always has a smile on his face and he hustles. I don't mean that in a bad way either. He's good guy. He talked to me for about 20 minutes in Pittsburgh after I approached him and scout during batting practice. In Chicago, I've seen him play with young children before the game on several occasions. He's very likeable. In baseball once you're in you're in unless you have a reputation as difficult to get along with. Which brings me to Todd Walker. Walker has bounced around a lot and is the mirror image of Neifi. He's moderately productive but doesn't seem to get along well with others. I haven't personally met Walker so I am basing this on what I've read.

My pick for NLROY. Conan O'Brien you're pick for NL ROY? Man, you going out there on your predictions, Outshined. 8-) That's quite a hula-hoop he's got around his neck.

That is load off my mind. Who is the odd man out? Does Miller go to the DL?

Those people at Desipio are really in love with themselves. It's quite pathetic. I've never been to that site before. Pretty bad. They take exceptional pleasure in making personal insults. The place is constant one-upsmanship.

He's been in the league long enough to that he will likely produce +.10 or -.10 of his career numbers. The thing is he hasn't been healthy for two years. I predict: @ .270/.315/.360 Fangraphs has projections http://www.fangraphs.com/statss.aspx?playerid=656&position=3BSS Not putrid, but the Cubs need a lot better than not putrid performance.

Those people at Desipio are really in love with themselves. It's quite pathetic.

Just Manny being Manny :-# Last year he reported late and laced a double in his first ST AB.

I'd be fine if he made it to 2b, which he didn't at least once last year. I don't recall him not reaching second, but I've tried to block out memories of Cubs baseball from October 2003 to the present.

The problem is that Ramirez doesn't know when his home runs are going to go out or not-I have no problem if somebody stands there for an obvious home run, but if it's questionable, the player has to run in order to avoid what happened to Ramirez multiple times last year. Again though, if Ramirez is the worst hustler on the team, then the Cubs have a good hustling team, because his possible hustle issues are much smaller than several around the league. Please, "multiple times"? You think Aramis has the speed to turn an obvious double into a triple? Please, let us find some other nits to pick. Aramis is fine.

The Cubs are in a tough position in regard to Barrett. I don't think Fox will make it as a catcher, meaning I don't think Fox will make it all. His defense behind the plate is very suspect. If the Cubs draft the college catcher in the first round (Weiters?) and he is good enough to stick there, I would have no trouble keeping Barrett for another year or two. However, Barrett is a tradeable asset. On the other hand the Cubs offense needs him to produce if they are going to contend. Tough situation.

I only want him if he bleeds everytime he pitches. He's pretty high up on the overrated meter as far as I'm concerned.

This is a Paul Sullivan issue. He's the only one who cares. And he keeps it going becuase he is a small, small human being who lives under a bridge on State Street during the off-season.

Seconded. SI and ESPN have always gone out of their collective way to take shots at the Cubs. After the Cubs win the WS, I wish there was a way they could keep SI and ESPN from covering them, basically telling SI and ESPN to go ef themselves. Was there some ancient war between Chicago and the East Coast that I'm unaware of? I don't understand the incessant hatred of Chicago that comes from there. They certainly don't hate on other cities like St. Louis and Houston like they do us, that's for sure. I mean look at that line: "Enjoy it while you can, Cubs fans." My God, is there any other city in sports that has to endure such a blatant, front-cover assault like that? Someone clue me in, because I've never seen anything close to that, ever, in regards to another team. They're basically salivating over watching the Cubs fail. And after what happened with the Bears this year, Christ did we kill Giuliani or something? Mike Fransessa and Chris Russo have a sports radio show on WFAN in NYC. Overall, the show is pretty good. These two know their stuff. However, they both hate the Cubs. Hate! And I cannot understand why? I guess it is becuase NY is a very trendy city. They love a front runner in NY.

So were the Colts. Michael Jordan and Tiger Woods have been on it more than a few times, too. Odd that you bring up Tiger. Sports Illustrated in 2002 did a cover story on its own curse and here is what they found: So while there is rock-solid proof that the cover curse exists, the fact that it's happened 37.2 percent of the time is something of an oddity. No that is not "rock solid" proof of anything. The rate is less than chance levels. I'm pretty sure that's what he meant, just a typo. Anyways, what would be the chance rating for this case? I don't think it was a typo Chance level is 50%. It's like someone making a prediction once a week and being right 14 weeks out of 52. Or, if someone were to bet based on the SI cover they would lose 6 bets out of 10. Golfer's aside from Tiger rarely ever win and their performance often fluctuates from week to week. It's an asinine theory made for people who believe in horoscopes and UFOs